Delta's path has tunnel right ahead

Monday

Jul 23, 2012 at 12:01 AMJul 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Gov. Jerry Brown is expected this week to announce a plan to siphon water beneath the Delta with a pair of large tunnels, although the science supporting the $13 billion project is uncertain and final decisions about how much water can be taken may not be made until after construction is complete.

Alex Breitler

Gov. Jerry Brown is expected this week to announce a plan to siphon water beneath the Delta with a pair of large tunnels, although the science supporting the $13 billion project is uncertain and final decisions about how much water can be taken may not be made until after construction is complete.

Meanwhile, San Joaquin County supervisors will consider formally opposing this modern-day incarnation of the peripheral canal on Tuesday. Their draft resolution calls the plan "destructive to the economy, habitat, water rights, water quality, land-use governance and way of life" of the county.

"They don't know if the project being proposed will work - will ever work. But the process prevails," said Brandon Nakagawa, the county's interim water resources coordinator, addressing San Joaquin County water commissioners last week.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan, as it is formally known, has been under development for six years at a cost of $150 million. Despite the time and money, no formal plan has emerged, and cities and farms as far south as San Diego have seen not one drop of additional water.

In his State of the State address in January, Brown committed to having the "basic elements" of the plan by midsummer.

But the announcement expected Wednesday may be more of a status report - somewhat short on specifics.

That's because officials have been scrambling to rework the plan after scientific review earlier this spring found its basic underpinning to be less than solid.

The whole point of the project is to make the water supply for much of the state more reliable by avoiding the Delta and its earthen levees, while simultaneously restoring the estuary's dying ecosystem by converting farms into wetland habitat.

In essence, the new habitat would compensate for the loss of water to the tunnels.

Scientists with state and federal agencies, however, found major faults with that strategy. They warned that without freshwater flow, some of the same species the plan is supposed to save may crash even further - or go extinct, in the case of winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon.

In light of that criticism, a newer version of the plan calls for fewer intake pumps on the Sacramento River, and speedier habitat restoration while the tunnels are under construction, as a kind of experiment. Then, depending on the outcome, the amount of water sent through the pipes could be increased or decreased as needed to protect the environment.

Opponents call this "plumbing before policy."

"Build it now, figure it out later," said Jonas Minton, water policy adviser with the environmental group Planning and Conservation League in Sacramento. "But after they spend billions building new tunnels, the pressure would be overwhelming to maximize water exports no matter the consequences on the fish."

Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources, said in an interview that he understands that concern.

But state and federal fish agencies, he said, will have the final say on how much water goes through the tunnels.

That seems to conflict with a draft document released last week, which suggests that the fish agencies cannot make unilateral decisions. But Cowin said the phrasing was intended to show that water groups would "at least have a right to some discussion" about any changes that the scientists deem are necessary.

The "plumbing before policy" drumbeat from tunnel opponents is unfair, Cowin said. There will, in fact, be guidelines in place when permits for the project are issued. It's just that those guidelines - essentially, the amount of water that can be exported, and when - could change as experts learn more about whether habitat restoration will be effective.

What if the experiment doesn't work, and the Delta's death spiral continues?

"If more outflow (through the Delta) is required, then more outflow will be required," Cowin said.

The question then is whether there will be enough water to make the project worthwhile for the farmers and cities who must pay for it.

One water district that has invested heavily in the process says it understands the risk.

The Kern County Water Agency has dropped millions into the plan already, and turned up the heat on the Brown administration in May by demanding action, or it would withhold future funding. Now Kern is waiting - like everyone else - to hear what the governor will say.

Brent Walthall, Kern County's assistant general manager, said he expects the habitat restoration to succeed, although no one can say for certain.

"Every water project has a certain amount of risk involved, any time you're investing large amounts of money in the regulatory environment California has," Walthall said. "This one has more risk, but also more benefits."

Of course, the tunnel plan goes far beyond fish and water. Combined with tens of thousands of acres of new habitat, it would forever change the face of the Delta, hitting agriculture hard and bruising San Joaquin County's economy as a result.

Opponents argue it would be wiser, cheaper and less disruptive to strengthen the Delta's levees so that water can continue to channel past them to the pumps near Tracy. This also would protect Delta infrastructure and human lives in the event of a flood - something tunnels cannot do.

The same critics also call for investment in projects that will make other areas of the state more self-reliant, and for retirement of farmland on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to reduce demand for Delta water.

To date, however, the state has focused its studies on the tunnels.

According to a county staff report, all but two of the 16 alternatives considered to date for the Delta plan involved the construction of some kind of major new aqueduct. And unlike the governor's other big project - high-speed rail - the state in this case has declined to conduct a full investigation of all the possible costs and benefits.

For Brown, moving forward with the tunnels would add a missing piece to the State Water Project, masterminded by his father, Gov. Edmund "Pat" Brown.

The project's dams, pipes and aqueducts were built in the 1960s to take water from the wetter northern half of the state to the arid southern half, although water that was supposed to come from North Coast rivers was never made available - a key reason water exports have placed the Delta under so much stress today.

But Bob Benedetti, director of the Jacoby Center at the University of the Pacific, said he doubts the Delta is a legacy issue for Jerry Brown.

"It seems to me they're jumping ahead of a scientific consensus on this because No. 1, they're very concerned about water, and No. 2, it's infrastructure," Benedetti said. "It's the way America has done things in the past - build infrastructure in order to help its capital development.

"I think Jerry Brown is following in the footsteps of people who built the post roads and the Erie Canal," he said. "What he wants to be remembered as, and he's fearful he won't be, is someone who was able to do some foundational work in California."